linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] SO_NO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20071122.114621.02788123.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Date:	Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:46:21 +0900 (JST)
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	jeff@...zik.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] SO_NO_CHECK for IPv6

In article <20071122023403.GA3409@...dor.apana.org.au> (at Thu, 22 Nov 2007 10:34:03 +0800), Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> says:

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:17:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > For those interested, I am dealing with a UDP app that already does very 
> > strong checksumming and encryption, so additional software checksumming 
> > at the lower layers is quite simply a waste of CPU cycles.  Hardware 
> > checksumming is fine, as long as its "free."
> 
> No matter how strong your underlying checksumming is it's not
> going to protect the IPv6 header is it :)

In that sense, we should use AH.

--yoshfuji
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/